- Comments from Bencherlite
- For the record, there are no ambiguous links or broken weblinks at this time.
- Images:
Don't force the image size per MOS:IMAGES; I realise that this might mean you have to move them around and lose e.g. the hat toss photo (no great loss?)
- The hat toss photo is the one thing that stays consistent across all of these lists. To loose it would be to throw away the consistent format that is used throughout these lists. As to the image sizing, let me see what impact that will have before implementing. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a hard/inflexible rule, it only says "as a rule" and many featured items have fixed image width. It's also under 300 as suggested. Plus as MBK004 mentioned, it provides consistency with the other lists in this topic, several of which are already featured. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I see why the hat toss photo stays, but at 100px I think the others are far too small. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
Do we really need to wikilink United States?
...refer to as Army and Cadets -> perhaps better to say as "Army" and as "Cadets"?
Prior the the founding... -> Prior to the founding, I assume
With "its predecessors", you could link History of the United States Air Force
What is the "congressional appointment system"? Can you explain it? Or would explaining it show that this information isn't needed for the lead of this list? (And yes I know it's mentioned in the Naval Academy list without explanation!)
- that is explained in the main articles on the academies and in my opinion that is the proper place for it and would be out of scope for an alumni list. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why mention it at all, then? I'm in the UK and that one bald sentence means nothing to me. Are readers meant to guess that the main article has United States Military Academy#Admission? How about linking to that section directly?BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned because it's a very unique system in the US. I've linked to the main article as you suggest. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cadets do not become astronauts on graduation, rather those who enter aviation and space-related fields have the opportunity to be selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (new para) This list is drawn from graduates of the Military Academy who became astronauts." How about ending the first paragraph a sentence earlier, and starting the second paragraph "Eighteen graduates of the Military Academy were later selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."
The second paragraph of the lead repeats the year that the academy opened, so remove this; if you want to keep the information about the first class year, move that to the first paragraph (although it's not vital information).
- Done, and kept first grad. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The most recent" - I'd add something like "As of March 2009", so readers can see how recent the information is.
As for the third paragraph of the lead, if we need it (which I'm undecided about), then perhaps wikilink the main alumni list to "other notable graduates".
- I think we need it to keep a standard format throughout all of these lists, many of which are already FLs. As to the wikilink, I have been looking for a place to link to that instead of just the navbox at the bottom. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the reason the navbox was created on a prior FL for USNA. There's no need to link it again at the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother forcing a TOC for a two-section list
- Again, keeping a consistent format across all of these list, this wasn't an issue at prior FLCs. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It wasn't an issue at prior FLCs" doesn't mean that it can never be raised. Why is a table of contents needed for this list? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because lists are long and it makes it far easier on the reader to get to that section vice having to scroll. I use it all the time in all these lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References (not all checked):
We have a mixture of USMA references using either e.g. "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy". It would be better to be consistent on whether you're mentioning USMA and whether in full or in abbreviation.
- made them USMA. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3 has been left as Office of Admissions, was this deliberate? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it was oversight, fixed now. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References should have "date=" where one exists e.g. ref 5 and the NASA biographies.
I dislike "2009-03-23" style dates in references, but I can't remember what this week's rule is about dates and date-formatting and the rule would probably change again in another five minutes, but someone else may have a better clue than me what the FLC preference is.
- That type of style was just fine in the FLC for the Naval Academy alumni which have all passed FLC within this past month. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not liking a valid date format is not a valid objection, also as MBK004 pointed out, other FLs use this format, and recent ones at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "it's not been an issue in the past" doesn't mean it can't be raised. And date formats in references have been raised in FLCs in the past (e.g. in one of my nominations, Colin said "ISO date formats ... should really be discouraged as that's what logged out readers see" (October 2008)). I was raising it as an issue for discussion (not saying I objected on an "I don't like it" basis), preferably by reference to WP guidance rather than arguments based on it not being raised in other recent FLs. However, having done some more looking around, I draw your attention to this current FAC where SandyGeorgia says "ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations" and this current FAC, where another reviewer said "You have a few accessdates that are in ISO format". So, if it's picked up at FAC, why shouldn't it be picked up at FLC? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not at fac and it's better for the topic to be consistent. If the FLC promoters cared about this it would have been mentioned long ago and it's not proper to change the rules in midstream. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, such date formatting is not discouraged by the MoS. It hasn't been an issue in previous lists, and as noted above, we should strive for consistency. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec, to both of you) So standards can be lower at FLC than at FAC, in your view? BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by any means, but I still fail to see any guideline or policy which prohibits the use of YYYY-MM-DD date formatting. Just because somebody raised a concern at FAC doesn't mean it's a legitimate issue. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just "somebody", but User:SandyGeorgia, one of the two delegates of the FA director. I'm sure she doesn't just raise issues for fun, but I'll go and ask her. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page number for ref 10 (the Borman book)? And ref 14 (the Collins book?)
Wikilinks for NASA (at least once), Boy Scouts of America, US Department of Education, The New York Times, and Georgia Tech.
- Done expect NASA is already linked in the lead. No need to relink. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Boy Scouts reference needs "work=Fact sheet"
Lots of nit-picking, but couldn't see anything fundamentally wrong. BencherliteTalk 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. I will reply interspersed as I get to them. I have a few rather busy days coming up with school so apologies in advance if things are not dealt with quickly. -MBK004 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's tough when the list is so exclusive, but I'd suggest trying to expand the second paragraph — you don't mention Buzz Aldrin, you don't mention Edward H. White, and I think they ought to be mentioned.
- Ref 5 just leads to the front cover, so which particular page are you relying on?
- several actually, but the URL doesn't change when you choose any of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know, that's why I asked. Can't you indicate which somewhere in the reference? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem awkward and wordy to me. The TOC on the left seems pretty simple and obvious to use. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that I look at the TOC and see courses in geography, English, law, foreign languages, history etc as well as science and engineering, so the bare reference doesn't support the text that "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields". Same problem with the other reference. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until:
- (a) "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields" is either removed or properly sourced;
- (b) My suggestion about expanding para 2 of the lead is either accepted or rejected;
- (c)
the dates in references are no longer in ISO format.
There is no excuse for standards being lower at FLC than FAC on a minor issue such as date presentation. As noted above, other FLCs have had this issue raised in the past so it's not "changing the rules in midstream" to raise this here. I don't care if other similar lists got past without this being raised; they should be changed as well. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re oppose: A) it is sourced, your first post was right, you're being excessively picky, B) being overly picky again, C) I've asked the list mods about this and see Julian's comment above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) No, "emphasizes" is original research as the links show courses in many more fields; (b) shame you didn't address the comment earlier; I still think a lead that doesn't even mention Buzz Aldrin is deficient; (c) noted, and see mine. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in written policy, not Sandy's opinion, does it say yyyy-mm-dd is prohibited (cx Julian's post too)? It is not OR, it's in the ref. For Buzz, I'll let the FLC nominator decide that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- updated in the light of Sandy's reply - her objection was to dates such as "2009-3-25" rather than "2009-03-25", so I had misunderstood her point. Drama over on point (c). BencherliteTalk 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
